This is the simplistic exegesis I mentioned, and I knew you had this exact passage in mind. Temporal and spiritual authority are different powers, but the spiritual is the principle of the temporal. This is why Boniface VIII wrote in Unam Sanctam that the "material sword" is administered "for the Church ... by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

Anyway, I'm going to back off before another thread gets locked and deleted. Please, everyone, continue your discussion as before.

Assuming so, arguendo. Then how do we interpret this quotation, in the light of women's suffrage?

Quote:

"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul

Hmmm, it seems the woman gets a vote but the husband may chose to cast it.

It is not so simple, since both are subject to the spiritual authority. Pius XII taught that it was binding on the Catholic woman's conscience to use her new rights in support of Catholic social doctrine. But note that that doesn't imply approval of the rights themselves.

"Consequently the vote is for the Catholic woman an important means of fulfilling her strict obligations of conscience, especially at the present time." - Women's Duties in Social and Political Life

Here we go. An actual Catholic view. Catholics are not supposed to cherry-pick ill-fitting quotations from wherever in the Bible like a hapless American evangelical.

The Catholic Church does not occupy itself with condemning the woman's right to vote. Why? Because its a really stupid and asinine project. There is no compelling danger or evil which has arisen since women have been given the vote. Not one. The Catholic Church has plenty of thorny issues to tackle, they are not interested in turning back time simply for the sake of turning back time.

Quote:

Kuros wrote:
No, I don't confuse Caesar for God.

This is the simplistic exegesis I mentioned, and I knew you had this exact passage in mind.

I was going to give you an uncharacteristically moderate answer but you know what? F*ck Yeah. I'd light the 19th on fire.

Quote:

The U.S. Constitution is a traditional (but also living) political document

The U.S. Constitution is ignored by those who actually govern the country. They parade it out for public relations and nothing more.

Quote:

There is no compelling danger or evil which has arisen since women have been given the vote. Not one.

I don't like how you've framed this entirely about the vote. The vote is in-itself meaningless but it stands as a totem to the total departure from biology (and perhaps God, if GF is right) that our society has been pushed in.

Not one? How about tens of millions of aborted babies? Women were liberated from their biology and tens of millions of innocent children got sucked out of wombs with vacuums and were then unceremoniously discarded. Here we are with a sub-replacement birthrate and women still fuss about the right to murder their babies. And we men, the stronger, dominant sex, allow it?

Quote:
There is no compelling danger or evil which has arisen since women have been given the vote. Not one.

I don't like how you've framed this entirely about the vote.

I'm precisely the third poster to mention the vote. Review the record.

Kuros wrote:

GF wrote:

Leon wrote:

Just out of curiosity, and Titus and GF can play along too, what is your opinion of original feminist issues, such as women voting, greater legal protection, etc.

Women are made as men's subjects and helpmeets for the generation and rearing of children, and for everything pertaining to motherhood; in all else, men are better helped by other men. With very few exceptions, women should have no role in public affairs. The vote is right out. For laywomen, liberal or 'rational' education (so important to Wollstonecraft) is iffy.

"Let wives be subject to their husbands ... as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." - St. Paul

"The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out." - Catechism of Trent

Since you asked.

Oh, right. This is why feminism was necessary.

Let it be known that when GF and Titus ominously intone "egalitarianism," they are at war with the 19th Amendment.

First, Leon. Second, GF. Third, Kuros.

Titus wrote:

The vote is in-itself meaningless but it stands as a totem to the total departure from biology (and perhaps God, if GF is right) that our society has been pushed in.

That's precisely why the vote is so interesting. You have, up until now, for the most part attacked 'political correctness' or what-have-you on biological or scientific grounds. Men and women are biologically different, there is no doubt, and you've managed, so far, to do quite well unraveling the egalitarian bias of those who would ignore biology. But denying women the vote has no clear biological or scientific basis.

Indeed, the proper traditionalist attack would be on democracy itself, not the extension of the equality franchise to women or discrete and insular minorities.

Titus wrote:

Quote:
The U.S. Constitution is a traditional (but also living) political document

The U.S. Constitution is ignored by those who actually govern the country. They parade it out for public relations and nothing more.

I can't argue with that. I won't bore you with further details, when Glenn Greenwald can do a much better job than I. (start at 5:15, when he says 'the rule of law' and hang in there for as long as you can).

My Millennial-aged girl friends and I never doubted that we would accomplish all of our life goals. Everything, thus far, has pretty much gone according to our plans. We were accepted into the right college, landed the dream job, and developed a network of amazing friends. Our apartments are beautifully decorated and we have closets full of stylish clothing. Romance hasn’t been entirely sidelined, but we don’t waste our time trying to cultivate a relationship unless someone is really amazing.

But now, a growing number of Millennial women are beginning to fret over the unanticipated consequences of prioritizing our careers before love. And I only need to look at my group of friends to see this reality. Again and again, year after year, my successful, gorgeous, and amazing friends remain kiss-less on New Year’s Eve. And on Valentine’s Day. And on the 4th of July. The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay, or otherwise involved in “it’s complicated” situations. We are coming to the realization that we were unwittingly playing a game of musical chairs — while everyone was pairing up, those focused on our careers are left standing alone.

And we can’t figure out what is happening.

“I don’t think the issue is that men used to be great and now they’re not,” says Jezebel’s Katie J.M. Baker. “Women used to feel more pressure to get married and have kids earlier, and prioritize those goals above the others.” Add to that women’s ability now to be self-sufficient financially and supported socially by so many friends in the same boat, it shouldn’t be that surprising so many Millennial women are single. Except to us singletons, it isn’t supposed to be this way.

Can't have it all.

Quote:

For one, it’s not as if we are holding out for Jake Gyllenhaal, but we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white-collar jobs. Life has always gone according to our plans, so why wouldn’t we land a man with these (reasonable) requirements?

This unwillingness to settle for less than we think we deserve is joined by a lax attitude towards searching for potential mates. We’re busy dominating the world.

Dominating the world = answering phones and writing HR memos.

Quote:

Millennial women are increasingly finding two options when it comes to romance: marry down or don’t marry. “There needs to be a cognitive behavior change in what are [considered] important traits,” says Mundy. “I talk to so many women who are obsessed with finding men on their level. They want someone as ambitious, engaged, and high-achieving as they are.

If a man doesn't have access to feminine, young and fertile women, why would he be "ambitious, engaged, and high-achieving?" What's the point in out performing other men if not to win the best mate?

Quote:

Or, accomplished women hold firm in searching for impressive men to help them feel they are getting anything out of the partnership. “They have this list of qualities (smart, has a job, knows something about culture or the world, etc) that seem pretty reasonable, but so few men meet the requirements,” says Melanie Shreffler, a marketing consultant on Millennial culture.

The female ego ruining female lives.

Quote:

Plus, many Millennial women are in the uncertain “grey” age range where we aren’t sure if we need to start stressing out over our single status and lower our standards.

The comments are great. Men are cluing in.

Arrow Night says:

Quote:

That is where the “equal, white collar” man comes in. She needs an equal or better in generating the same level of income she is used to so that when she “checks out” of the rat race via having kids and deciding to be a stay at home mom – her “man” has the goods and the opportunity to “man up”, work harder, and make up for her half of the lost income, so she can keep spending the same amount of money on her established standards, while contributing nothing.

I call it the age 30 retirement program. And the 35+ year olds are mad because they can’t “cash out.” Where is there retirement benefits when she needs them? Dammit!

I remain fascinated by people who voluntarily work as thought police for the PC regime. As I’ve said before, totalitarian regimes have always had to pay or threaten people into doing their bidding. Today’s progressive regime has lots of people who are apparently willing to ruin the lives of others to enforce unwritten speech codes.

I can’t, in all honesty, understand such hatred of another person, especially one that I don’t know (let alone his family or other dependents).

Today’s incredible intolerable offense is making *beep* jokes. That’s right, it’s now a fire-able offense in America, the land of the free, to make a *beep* joke. Your speech is “free,” but if you find *beep* jokes funny, you’re unfit to work. Behold, the shining city on a hill!

...

Imagine you’re at a conference, and someone keeps repeating the word “dongle.” If you’re not a queer, a non-native speaker, or a humorless douchebag, what do you do? (Frankly, that was unfair to the gay guys. I know lots of them who would be among the first to laugh). You laugh and make a dongle jokewith your buddy.

Every self-respecting man thinks someone saying dongle a lot on stage is sort of funny. I have a 2-year old who has already started making the occasional *beep* joke. I’ve heard men in the 80s make *beep* jokes.

Must every man with a sense of humor now lose his job?

Are we really this fscking lame?

What is the lesson from this? Look around for the Cheka before telling a joke. See a woman? Keep quiet. Nagging, gossping church ladies with smart phones.